That seems like a stupid argument to make. I don't see how that favors Romney at all. It's more than enough to point out that the woman died many years after her husbands layoff, and she did have insurance herself for another two years through her own employer. Those that make their living doing the things that companies like Bain do can no more think about the people their decisions affect than a president can worry about who's going to die in the next firefight. The old, it's lonely at the top deal.
Not really a correct statement from an objective point of view. Do you think that Martin Luther's critics had much good to say about him, or do you think that they considered him a conman? Point is that history is filled with biased records, and the proof you refer to is hardly as conclusive and firm as you make it sound. It never is, and is always full of prejudiced and biased statements and stories that are difficult to trace back to their true source. Also, supporters of any lasting organization like Mormonism have just as much "history" supporting their belief as you profess to have supporting your opposition. Time really has nothing to do with it either. Many religions young and old can trace their origins to a single person professing an occurrence of divine visitation or inspiration. Whether this supposedly happened 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago doesn't really make a difference. I would argue that if a person believes in direct communication with deity, then any such communication is possible at any point in history. It is then up to each believer to decide if any recent occurrence is valid or not. OTOH, if a person believes that no such occurrence is possible, then that is within their personal rights, but it isn't realistic to say that Romney has no critical thinking ability because of Mormonism, while at the same time not disqualifying Obama on the very same grounds. Both believe in direct communication with and visitation from God.
That's a totally moronic response like the many you post around here. Look again at my original post: I didn't say that he should evade taxes but that he should minimize them. Although I clearly meant it as a joke (funny face next to it) it's true and makes sense. We should all strive to pay the minimum amount of taxes that's legally required. If one wants to contribute more, they can do so directly.
apples and oranges. geeze, after conversing with you for a while i have to say you make forrest gump look like a rhodes scholar. Forrest Gump is a 1994 film starring Tom Hanks about a mentally challenged man's epic journey through life, meeting historical figures, influencing popular culture, and experiencing first-hand historical incidents while largely unaware of their significance. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump
One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. H. L. Mencken
That's not what I'm saying. This country was founded around the principle of freedom of religion and we should respect that, the freedom that people should have to choose their own religious group if they want to. Isolating one of those groups and claiming that it is silly or worse, is not only insensitive and destructive but also irrational and downright stupid. Let them believe what they want as long as it is positive and peaceful, their faith strentgthens them as individuals and as a group. If you are an atheist, I respect your right to choose that too, np here. To further highlight the depth of hypocrisy that liberals like you have fallen into, remember when it became known that Obama was a member of that extremist church, the one with the Rev Wright yelling G-D America, etc etc. That's an example of a negative approach to religion that's very rarely seen in this country, not even satanists do that. Yet, the left screamed to high heaven that his choice of religious affiliation was his own problem and right and that the media should stay out of it. Until, of course, Obama betrayed his beloved and very much trusted mentor and threw him under the bus for his own political advantage... Can't trust the man.
The freedom to choose does not automatically imply any respect is due for the choice itself or for those who chose it. Choosing and believing what they want is every persons right. It is not a free pass to respect. Many very nasty things are done within the name of 'positive peaceful religion'. Respect has to be earned. It isn't granted just because people have shrouded themselves in the religious banner upon which, from Mormons to Christians, every kind of weird and bizarre faith imaginable is painted. Mere mention is a good time to be skeptical not respectful.